It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

page: 56
377
<< 53  54  55    57  58  59 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2010 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM



Within 12 years.

Another way you can look at it is that von Braun didnt get what he wanted, and tried to pitch for more money to realize his dream. But knowing how impossible a trip to the moon was, the powers that be simply kept using Apollo as a cover for militarizing space:

Corona
Mol
women astronauts
and who knows what else
www.geog.ucsb.edu...


Heh, and here you spent post after post earlier in the thread telling us that they brought von Braun into NASA explicitly for the purpose of "militarizing space", only to find out later he only wanted to go to Mars.

But then again, consistency was never one of your strong points....
\


Umm... ok can you elaborate where this is a problem of inconsistency?
Because it sounds like your trying to disagree about something for the sake of disagreeing. Like you dont know how to defend NASA so you just poo-poo anything anybody says.

If you want to grab for straws, go out to farm.




posted on May, 19 2010 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ
Yes, it is quite good quality


Quite good? Their video transmission quality was bloody amazing, and that's the problem. There are news crews around the world that can't pull this off even with today's tech.

Even with the live feed from the shuttle booster rockets the video signal breaks up like all hell a few miles above the earth.

There should have been far more drop outs, radiation related interference, general interference, etc. etc.


[edit on 19-5-2010 by ppk55]



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Within 12 years.

Another way you can look at it is that von Braun didnt get what he wanted, and tried to pitch for more money to realize his dream. But knowing how impossible a trip to the moon was, the powers that be simply kept using Apollo as a cover for militarizing space:

Corona
Mol
women astronauts
and who knows what else
www.geog.ucsb.edu...





Since you propably still dont get the inconsistencies here 2 questions:
a) What was this dream you mention he wanted to realize?
b) was von Braun in on it or not?



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55

Originally posted by CHRLZ
Yes, it is quite good quality


Quite good? Their video transmission quality was bloody amazing, and that's the problem. There are news crews around the world that can't pull this off even with today's tech.

Even with the live feed from the shuttle booster rockets the video signal breaks up like all hell a few miles above the earth.

There should have been far more drop outs, radiation related interference, general interference, etc. etc.


[edit on 19-5-2010 by ppk55]



Of course you would KNOW this because you have done this for yourself then


Lets see your transmission from the Moon



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55

Originally posted by CHRLZ
Yes, it is quite good quality


Quite good? Their video transmission quality was bloody amazing, and that's the problem. There are news crews around the world that can't pull this off even with today's tech.

Even with the live feed from the shuttle booster rockets the video signal breaks up like all hell a few miles above the earth.

There should have been far more drop outs, radiation related interference, general interference, etc. etc.


[edit on 19-5-2010 by ppk55]


This is a textbook example of an "argument from incredulity" (or, more directly "argument from ignorance"). Just because you think it couldn't be done, the fact is it was, and there is ample proof that it was, you provided it. Just because you can't wrap your head around it doesn't make it an argument.

Unless, of course, you would care to look through the reports and find out why they shouldn't look as they do.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthquest

Originally posted by Tomblvd
Great. Let's start then with one of these "independently verifiable" claims. If you would give us one, with the verification. We can see who is right and who is wrong.


The first claim I saw him make is that the following photo at: history.nasa.gov... could not have been made without multiple light sources.

Here is a condensed commented version with comments I added:



[edit on 18-5-2010 by truthquest]


That "object" you circled seems to be ink, that you can find on other photos.
Ink that I am assuming is used to black shadows and skies.

At any rate, here is something to consider.
Not all the photos were released during the Apollo missions.



Until now, these film products have resided in cold storage or have been shelved and archived at NASA data repositories. Access to them required a trip to Houston, Washington DC, or other locations and for manual searches through binders, microfilm, or other catalogs, for which photographic reprints could be requested and produced. Indeed, the public, because of these limitations, has never had the opportunity to see most of the photos taken by the Apollo astronauts.
www.lpi.usra.edu...


Which can mean that



Ninety five percent of NASA's fake Moon pictures on their web sites, WERE NEVER SEEN PRIOR TO THE LAUNCH OF THE INTERNET. They had to produce a considerable number of fake Moon pictures, for all six missions, otherwise the public would want to know why there were so few. Not all of NASA's fake Apollo pictures have been altered with Photoshop. The main Apollo 11 picture of Buzz Aldrin, as well press released pictures from Apollo 12 and Apollo 14 showing astroNOTS holding the flag. All of these press release pictures were taken in the fake Moonscape at Langley Research Center, and did not require any alteration to pass off as a Moon photograph. NASA instructed Michael J Tuttle at the Smithsonian center, to conjure up some photographs that could be passed off as genuine pictures taken on Apollo Moon missions, and here's how he did it with Photoshop 3.

apollofake.bravehost.com...

So if there was hanky panky going on with the photos, you dont need to have on set lights to create the "shadow" anomalies. They could have been inked in, or created by compositing the images.




Come along Michael you know full well what appears here is the truth, and you can't deny it because the evidence is overwhelming. In case you have forgotten, I reproduce the pictures below to refresh your memory. These FAKE pictures, altered with Photoshop, and with your name at the bottom, were displayed on the Internet as genuine Moon photographs before 1998. However when you were exposed on this web site back in 1997, they quickly dissappeared from the Internet, only to re-appear later with, of course, your name removed from the picture. You also created the 360 degree landing site FAKE shots. Notice in the third picture, how the lunar rover tire tracks end abruptly, because more sand/ash was spread over the area, or Mr. Tuttle did a poor job of pasting additional Moon soil in that area.




or here is an interesting photo:



First you got the issue with the tire tracks



you'll see that although there are tracks behind the rover, none of them line up with the rover's rear wheels.. NASA claims that the astronauts actually lifted the rover off of the curved tracks and transported it


But whats worse... check out the shadows of the rocks! Check how they magically split directions from the near center line of the photo!



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by debunky

Originally posted by FoosM
Within 12 years.

Another way you can look at it is that von Braun didnt get what he wanted, and tried to pitch for more money to realize his dream. But knowing how impossible a trip to the moon was, the powers that be simply kept using Apollo as a cover for militarizing space:

Corona
Mol
women astronauts
and who knows what else
www.geog.ucsb.edu...





Since you propably still dont get the inconsistencies here 2 questions:
a) What was this dream you mention he wanted to realize?
b) was von Braun in on it or not?



Oh so wait, you understand why its inconsistent so then explain the inconsistency.
And make it quick, cause Im running out of popcorn.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Oh so wait, you understand why its inconsistent so then explain the inconsistency.
And make it quick, cause Im running out of popcorn.


What part of debunky's questions do you not understand? Put down the popcorn and think about what you're saying. What was von Braun's dream? The militarization of space, or going to Mars or the Moon? Did he know it was all a hoax? If it was all a hoax, how could space be militarized? Don't you need to be able to go into space to militarize it? If you can go into space, why fake it?



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 03:02 PM
link   
For everyone who's lately been discussing the live video feeds from the Apollo missions, I thought I'd add what I've recently learned from reading Failure Is Not An Option, the memoir by MCC controller for quite a few manned Gemini and Apollo missions, Gene Kranz.

The news reporters of the day were ALWAYS hounding them, watching every move, never letting up their vigilance. The news people (all men of course, back then) were given full press packets for each mission, and were quite well informed and aware of the technical details ongoing.

There came an issue where it was deemed necessary for some privacy, in communications....for the NASA physicians to speak privately to the Astronauts, on occasion. They devised a coded phrase, a "UHF-6 test", to cue a switch to a discreet frequency.

The REPORTERS CAUGHT ON TO THIS!!! Eventually, they figured out something was being put over on them, and they asked!!

Well, when they found out WHY it was being done, they were satisfied, and realized it was OK for them to be excluded from such private communications. BUT, the point is, THEY CAUGHT IT!!!

Fishbowl, people....fishbowl.

"Jarrah White" is a crud 'researcher', and a crud human being --- and I'm being generous.



[edit on 19 May 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by truthquest
 

How's this?


Multiple light sources create multiple shadows from the same object. Where are the multiple shadows in the Apollo images?

[edit on 5/18/2010 by Phage]



Im sorry but J.Ws three indepth videos which includes a perspective expert trumps your example photo which is not doing what is going on with the Apollo photo.




Again, people who believe in Apollo have a difficult time thinking outside of Apollo.
Kind of like religious people, xians, muslims, etc have a difficult of proving their God, miracles, etc outside of their religious books.

The point is, the photo could be a composite.
That means one could use any tricks in their book to create that image.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Oh so wait, you understand why its inconsistent so then explain the inconsistency.
And make it quick, cause Im running out of popcorn.


What part of debunky's questions do you not understand? Put down the popcorn and think about what you're saying. What was von Braun's dream? The militarization of space, or going to Mars or the Moon? Did he know it was all a hoax? If it was all a hoax, how could space be militarized? Don't you need to be able to go into space to militarize it? If you can go into space, why fake it?


OMG! Read carefully TOMBVLDs post!



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM


Im sorry but J.Ws three indepth videos which includes a perspective expert trumps your example photo which is not doing what is going on with the Apollo photo.




Here's an idea, how about you present an argument for a change instead of just posting someone else's totally incorrect videos to make your points for you?



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM


OMG! Read carefully TOMBVLDs post!


Why don't you ANSWER Tombvld's post???



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


BTW Foos, who is this "perspective expert" in the video and what are her qualifications?



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Getting sadder by the minute...

THIS video:



...with the alleged 'expert' and "his highness, the ONE you seem to worship" (JW) at her side, was already discussed several pages back...( How in the gol-darned world has THIS thread gone on so long, anyway?
)

Thoroughly unconvincing, this woman so-called "expert". Sure, she can fool some people (easily fooled "his highness") as has been clearly evidenced in this ridiculous thread.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by truthquest
 


You need to see how the terrain in that picture is because as Phage has shown what you claim cant happen can be shown to happen here on earth, YOUR challange is take a photograph with multiple light sources and each object and it doesn't matter how close to each other only have ONE shadow.

LETS see YOU do that!


Not one to back down from a challenge, I've taken a few photos. I used two lamps as my light source. I put various clothes on top of a stand to represent different possible moon darkness as follows:


The first photo shows the two lamps. The rest of the photos shows the two lamps turned on with an object placed on the stand which is covered in different colored cloth. In the first two images the two shadows are easy to see. In the image with the black cloth one shadow has been almost entirely drowned out but remains visible. One thing I noticed at the end is that the shadow that was on the wall which was cast in natural light was easily drowned out entirely.

What do the photos I took mean to me? In most cases I should expect a shadow. But in rare cases I expect the shadow to be almost or entirely drowned out depending on the specific setup. So, while these photos are evidence there should have been multiple shadows they are not conclusive proof just like the picture presented by Phage was evidence but not conclusive proof.

In any case, the problem with your challenge is that even if it really isn't possible to show an image without two shadows, it doesn't take away from the shadow angle disparity. If you can't re-create a shadow angle disparity in a real-world example, then the image must be a fake regardless of how many shadows are cast in the image.

The second I see such a photo with a similar angle disparity over a small area like in the Apollo 17 photo I'll change my mind easily because I really do suspect it can be done. Until then though I'm just guessing and will say Jarrah White brings up a good question with the Apollo 17 photo in question (as shown at the top of previous page) because that angle disparity is an oddity.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by truthquest
 


Oh....[face/palm].

Where is the majority of the ambient light originating, in your 'room' demonstration?

(Got any perpetual motion "proofs" up you sleeve, as well?)

Look....be honest, we are speaking, here, of an over-analysis of ONE (or, at most, a handful) of Apollo STILL photos.

YET, in all of these discussions, the "Apollo Deniers" never find any way to reconile the FACT of the other images we have, from Apollo...the VIDEO!

Moon landing "hoax" believers all resort to the same hackneyed attempts at 'proof', and all fail miserably.

People here in the USA (and if the show is syndicated internationally, many others will know of) a woman named "Judge Judy".

She once authored a book titled: "Don't Pee On My Leg and Tell Me It's Raining".

Perfectly apt, here.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd
reply to post by truthquest
 


I noticed "measurements" in your picture of 238.7 and 238.8 degrees, how are you able to get such a degree of accuracy in your measurements?




Originally posted by CHRLZ
truthquest, apart from the points being raised here by others, like:

- absolutely no trace of multiple shadows
- penumbral effects that match the sun's angular size correctly

..can I ask if you spent any time actually looking closely at that image?

If not, then I would suggest you need to be a little more rigorous in your truth-questing. If you did, may I ask a very simple question of you..

- do you agree with the directions he has 'determined'?

(If Jarrah has elaborated on how he determined those angles I suggest you post that information.)


I have a very good reason for asking that question... Actually *several* reasons. And I will elaborate, in a pictorial form, after you have answered.


I drew the arrows on the photo myself. I agree the angle directions are not exact but rather they are rough estimates. I started from corners where the shadow starts in each rock and drew along the shadow line. Anybody can try this their self and they are probably going to end up with similar angles but of course I welcome any corrections. I used Corel Paint Shop which shows the exact angles when you draw lines.

I took plenty of time to look at the photos, though not being a photography expert that doesn't mean much.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthquest


The second I see such a photo with a similar angle disparity over a small area like in the Apollo 17 photo I'll change my mind easily because I really do suspect it can be done. Until then though I'm just guessing and will say Jarrah White brings up a good question with the Apollo 17 photo in question (as shown at the top of previous page) because that angle disparity is an oddity.


And once again I ask, how do you manage to get a measurement of 283.7 and 283.8 from that picture? How do you get the accuaracy down to a decimal point?



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by truthquest
 


Oh....[face/palm].

Where is the majority of the ambient light originating, in your 'room' demonstration?

(Got any perpetual motion "proofs" up you sleeve, as well?)

Look....be honest, we are speaking, here, of an over-analysis of ONE (or, at most, a handful) of Apollo STILL photos.

YET, in all of these discussions, the "Apollo Deniers" never find any way to reconile the FACT of the other images we have, from Apollo...the VIDEO!

Moon landing "hoax" believers all resort to the same hackneyed attempts at 'proof', and all fail miserably.

People here in the USA (and if the show is syndicated internationally, many others will know of) a woman named "Judge Judy".

She once authored a book titled: "Don't Pee On My Leg and Tell Me It's Raining".

Perfectly apt, here.


Come on, I quite clearly said my photos didn't prove anything. They don't. I said that the photos show that 2nd shadows can be quite difficult or sometimes impossible to see. So, did I show that or not? The ambient lighting originated from the opposite side of the wall. In my photo the 2nd shadow was difficult to see only on the black cloth.

The hardcore hoax supporters may never be convinced of anything but for most ATS users we will simply believe where the evidence takes us.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 53  54  55    57  58  59 >>

log in

join